Well, this is another topic that I might have fun with. I guess might is the key word though, I bet this will turn out pretty boring. Anyway, those of you who know probably know that well, I think stereotypes are very accurate. And they are. They had to come from somewhere and be based on some truths and nowadays, most subjects seem to a do a fairly good job of supporting their stereotypes. No further comment.
Annnnyway, back to business. Shakespeare does seem to work quite a few stereotypes into his literature, mostly centered on class differences. Obviously, Shakespeare himself belonged to the middle or upper class for at least the latter part of his life and this most likely gave him strong opinions, valid or not, on the lower classes. In Much Ado about nothing he portrays the lower class as something to be made fun of, to mocked, and possibly to be ignored. The prime example of this is the character Dogberry. He is, well, an ass. From the first moment we hear him we can tell that he is not quite as mentally adept as all of the other characters based on a couple of things. First of all, he continually repeats himself (and others), whether it is necessary or not. This makes him seem like he is trying to get attention or just trying to sound informed. In addition, his dialogue make very little sense. For instance, when he is trying to tell Leonato about Borachio and Margaret, he uses the word tedious as if it is a good thing, a godly thing. It, of course, isn't and Leonato knows this. But he doesn't say anything. This brings up another point, showing how the upper class in the novel looks down upon the lower. He just kind of blows off Dogberry, assuming he could have nothing important to say, and tries to escape as soon as possible.
But there also seems to be a slight stereotype on the upper class. All of them are portrayed as decent, educated people that always have their wits about them. But Shakespeare contrasts this by making all of these characters engage in relatively pointless pursuits of love and similar. This suggests that the life of the aristocracy was like a rococo painting, playful, happy, and utterly useless.
And, quickly, one more thing seems to stick out to me. There is a lack of stereotypes towards women. This was written in a time where women were just thought to be child factories and sex objects but the women in this (Beatrice at the very least) are portrayed as smart and independent. This is quite opposite to the belief of the time and suggests that maybe Shakespeare was 200 years ahead of the game.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Friday, December 21, 2007
Is Lying Ever Ethical???
Well...
As a teenager I must say I do my fair share of lying. But so does everyone... I mean do you tell your parents everything that happened at that crazy party? But these lies are all in good intentions and none severely effect anyone's life. They may not be exactly what one calls "white lies" but they are definitely small and legit.
However, is what I am doing right? It could be debated that I am violating society's ethical and moral code. This question is also brought up in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing. All of the characters are pulled into a web of lies that range from these good intentioned "white lies" to matchmaking lies to devious, life ruining lies. One can examine each type and the situations they appear in and make a decision about the morality of them.
First lets consider the lie that Don Pedro, Leonato, and Claudio create to make Benedick fall in love with Beatrice. They do a very good job of convincing him that she really does like him even though it is clear from her actions that she cannot stand him. But, their plan works and he falls in love with her. So far, however, they have not balanced the equation. Beatrice clearly still hates Benedick. So what would happen if Benedick confessed everything he heard to her? Not only would Benedick be hurt because his friends were clearly lying to him but his situation with Beatrice would worsen. His heart would be broken and she may hate him more because of his attempts. So, in this case, even a lie with very good intentions can be negative.
But then one could say that Benedick will not approach Beatrice before the men convince her to love Benedick. Then this lie would have been positive and many good things could come of it. But, in my opinion, there is too much risk to warrant this even though the objective is love.
Looking back earlier in the play, we can see a lie that was meant to be damaging and almost is. Don John convinces the highly gullible Claudio that Don Pedro is "wooing" Hero for himself rather than for Claudio as was the plan. John intends to create strife in Pedro's forces as revenge for his defeat on the battlefield. Pedro is able to correct this lie quickly and no harm is done but, I think, everyone can agree that this would not be an acceptable situation for lying.
As a teenager I must say I do my fair share of lying. But so does everyone... I mean do you tell your parents everything that happened at that crazy party? But these lies are all in good intentions and none severely effect anyone's life. They may not be exactly what one calls "white lies" but they are definitely small and legit.
However, is what I am doing right? It could be debated that I am violating society's ethical and moral code. This question is also brought up in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing. All of the characters are pulled into a web of lies that range from these good intentioned "white lies" to matchmaking lies to devious, life ruining lies. One can examine each type and the situations they appear in and make a decision about the morality of them.
First lets consider the lie that Don Pedro, Leonato, and Claudio create to make Benedick fall in love with Beatrice. They do a very good job of convincing him that she really does like him even though it is clear from her actions that she cannot stand him. But, their plan works and he falls in love with her. So far, however, they have not balanced the equation. Beatrice clearly still hates Benedick. So what would happen if Benedick confessed everything he heard to her? Not only would Benedick be hurt because his friends were clearly lying to him but his situation with Beatrice would worsen. His heart would be broken and she may hate him more because of his attempts. So, in this case, even a lie with very good intentions can be negative.
But then one could say that Benedick will not approach Beatrice before the men convince her to love Benedick. Then this lie would have been positive and many good things could come of it. But, in my opinion, there is too much risk to warrant this even though the objective is love.
Looking back earlier in the play, we can see a lie that was meant to be damaging and almost is. Don John convinces the highly gullible Claudio that Don Pedro is "wooing" Hero for himself rather than for Claudio as was the plan. John intends to create strife in Pedro's forces as revenge for his defeat on the battlefield. Pedro is able to correct this lie quickly and no harm is done but, I think, everyone can agree that this would not be an acceptable situation for lying.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Armies in the Fire
The lamps now glitter down the street;
Faintly sound the falling feet;
And the blue even slowly falls
About the garden trees and walls.
Now in the falling of the gloom
The red fire paints the empty room:
And warmly on the roof it looks,
And flickers on the back of books.
Armies march by tower and spire
Of cities blazing, in the fire;--
Till as I gaze with staring eyes,
The armies fall, the lustre dies.
Then once again the glow returns;
Again the phantom city burns;
And down the red-hot valley, lo!
The phantom armies marching go!
Blinking embers, tell me true
Where are those armies marching to,
And what the burning city is
That crumbles in your furnaces!
Robert Louis Stevenson
This poem is interesting to me because it goes through such a wide range of emotions about a single topic. At the start of the poem, Stevenson talks about a fire as if it were something harmless and beautiful. He uses the word "paints" (6) to describe how the fire illuminates a room. It gives us a sense of warmth and beauty that we might associate with a crackling fire in a fireplace in the middle of winter. But his descriptions start to change. He writes, "Armies march by tower and spire" (9) This makes us think of fire as a more furious and dangerious thing. Also the use of "tower and spire" (9) tells how large the flames can become and gives us a sense of fear. Still later, the descriptions change again. He writes, "Blinking embers tell me true" (17) which makes the fire seem small and insignificant, yet almost old and wise. He is asking them for advice and they may give it to him.
This poem relates to me in a couple of ways. First of all, it reminds me of the life a teenager. The poem talks about such a wide range of feelings and emotions and to me that is similar to what an adolescent goes through. We can, all at once, be "painting," "marching," and "blinking." Also this poem almost seems like a the story of a relationship. Caring and gentle at first. Then passionate and raging before something goes wrong and "the lustre dies" (12). Then there may be a quick resurgence before things are let go and the lovers are left wondering what happened to their relationship.
The lamps now glitter down the street;
Faintly sound the falling feet;
And the blue even slowly falls
About the garden trees and walls.
Now in the falling of the gloom
The red fire paints the empty room:
And warmly on the roof it looks,
And flickers on the back of books.
Armies march by tower and spire
Of cities blazing, in the fire;--
Till as I gaze with staring eyes,
The armies fall, the lustre dies.
Then once again the glow returns;
Again the phantom city burns;
And down the red-hot valley, lo!
The phantom armies marching go!
Blinking embers, tell me true
Where are those armies marching to,
And what the burning city is
That crumbles in your furnaces!
Robert Louis Stevenson
This poem is interesting to me because it goes through such a wide range of emotions about a single topic. At the start of the poem, Stevenson talks about a fire as if it were something harmless and beautiful. He uses the word "paints" (6) to describe how the fire illuminates a room. It gives us a sense of warmth and beauty that we might associate with a crackling fire in a fireplace in the middle of winter. But his descriptions start to change. He writes, "Armies march by tower and spire" (9) This makes us think of fire as a more furious and dangerious thing. Also the use of "tower and spire" (9) tells how large the flames can become and gives us a sense of fear. Still later, the descriptions change again. He writes, "Blinking embers tell me true" (17) which makes the fire seem small and insignificant, yet almost old and wise. He is asking them for advice and they may give it to him.
This poem relates to me in a couple of ways. First of all, it reminds me of the life a teenager. The poem talks about such a wide range of feelings and emotions and to me that is similar to what an adolescent goes through. We can, all at once, be "painting," "marching," and "blinking." Also this poem almost seems like a the story of a relationship. Caring and gentle at first. Then passionate and raging before something goes wrong and "the lustre dies" (12). Then there may be a quick resurgence before things are let go and the lovers are left wondering what happened to their relationship.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
First Quarter Reflection
Well, that's one quarter done. Only 11 more until we graduate! Hooray!!!
Looking back, it was a pretty tough quarter. Starting off the year, I was overwhelmed by the amount of work, but I quickly learned to manage. Also, our class at the beginning of the year was slightly below par. We were(and still are) very talkative and class seemed to be a little bit out of control. Ms. Froehlich was clearly frustrated with us which I picked up on but I'm not sure if the whole class did. But we overcame that problem, coincidentally, when our class became a bit smaller. Now we are still talkative but I think that we have done a pretty keeping class under control. Our discussions are still lively but are not as wild and disrespectful as they used to be. So the class has improved a great deal since the beginning of the year but there is still room to become more excellent, but not perfect.
I think that I have improved in English as well. Again, I was slightly overwhelmed in September, but now I don't have a problem managing the workload. Also I think that my writing skills have improved quite a bit. My work was very confusing, or so I was told, but I have been working on that and have definitely cleared things up. While we haven't written a full paper since ELIC, my paragraphs and thesis's have been much better and have, hopefully, made sense to more people besides myself. In addition, kinda off topic, but, my journalism writing for Zephyrus has been much better. I'm growing in more than one type of writing, which is good.
Finally, my goals for 2nd quarter. First of all, I want to continue clearing up my writing, and work on getting rid of all of the metaphors in my writing. To do this I am going to try to get more feedback from classmates and Ms. Froehlich, before our research paper is due.
Secondly, I want to work on finishing my work before the last minute. This will make my life much less stressful and will help my work improve. Also, I want to make my grade a bit better, I don't want to just scrape an A, I would much rather earn it.
Looking back, it was a pretty tough quarter. Starting off the year, I was overwhelmed by the amount of work, but I quickly learned to manage. Also, our class at the beginning of the year was slightly below par. We were(and still are) very talkative and class seemed to be a little bit out of control. Ms. Froehlich was clearly frustrated with us which I picked up on but I'm not sure if the whole class did. But we overcame that problem, coincidentally, when our class became a bit smaller. Now we are still talkative but I think that we have done a pretty keeping class under control. Our discussions are still lively but are not as wild and disrespectful as they used to be. So the class has improved a great deal since the beginning of the year but there is still room to become more excellent, but not perfect.
I think that I have improved in English as well. Again, I was slightly overwhelmed in September, but now I don't have a problem managing the workload. Also I think that my writing skills have improved quite a bit. My work was very confusing, or so I was told, but I have been working on that and have definitely cleared things up. While we haven't written a full paper since ELIC, my paragraphs and thesis's have been much better and have, hopefully, made sense to more people besides myself. In addition, kinda off topic, but, my journalism writing for Zephyrus has been much better. I'm growing in more than one type of writing, which is good.
Finally, my goals for 2nd quarter. First of all, I want to continue clearing up my writing, and work on getting rid of all of the metaphors in my writing. To do this I am going to try to get more feedback from classmates and Ms. Froehlich, before our research paper is due.
Secondly, I want to work on finishing my work before the last minute. This will make my life much less stressful and will help my work improve. Also, I want to make my grade a bit better, I don't want to just scrape an A, I would much rather earn it.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Outside Reading Post
Well, we've finally reached the end of the first quarter and with it the end of this blog topic. It's an emotional time for all of us...
just kidding
Anyway for my final blog I'm going to talk about potential themes that I saw in The Bourne Supremacy by Robert Ludlum. This book is written in a way that provokes many themes. Everything that is told is told in a way that could be seen as hard to pick a theme out of. The writing is fast paced, action oriented, and much of the time seemingly unthoughtful. This may be true in a few rare cases but most of the time things were meant not only by the story but by the abstract writing style as well.
One of the things that pulls a theme out in this book is the use of David Webb and Jason Bourne. They are the same person but are written as separate characters. Both of them have two very different personalities but we can see that they are, deep down, almost the same. This brings out the theme that to succeed in any endeavor, one must first get to know themselves. David asks, "What do you do when there is a part of you that you hate?"(646). Marie replies "Accept it. He's the one who brought you back to me" (646). From this quote we can see that although Webb does not like his dangerous side, but because he was able to use it and know it, he saved his wife Marie and she is, obviously, very grateful. Also we can infer that if David himself had tried to rescue Marie from the government and the Chinese that he would have failed. But he knew what Bourne could do and he was able to use that.
Another theme that I noticed in this novel is the idea that the motives behind an action do not justify the actions themselves. This may be a fairly obvious theme but it takes center stage with no problem. Marie is abducted and held captive just to get her husband to come to China and help capture a killer. While this end may be justifiable the actions used to get there are not. Bourne tells one of his wife's captors, "It's obvious that she didn't have a damn thing to with it. Let her go!"(159). Bourne is furious that his wife has been dragged into this. He agrees that this killer must be caught but he is severely opposed to how they got him to do it. Throughout the rest of the book Bourne is very distrusting of the government for obvious reasons and this shows us how serious their infraction was.
Well, so there's a couple themes, kind of a boring topic but since this is English, somewhat necessary. Overall this book seemed to fit well inside the thriller genre which is what I expected, the writing was still fairly complex though, which lends an analytical element to the story. I'm not sure if I would recommend this book to anyone, especially those who think that it will resemble the movie. I enjoyed reading the book, but the first book in the series was much better and would still make sense if left alone.
So if you do decide to read this book, I'm open for discussion. There is definitely a lot to talk about.
just kidding
Anyway for my final blog I'm going to talk about potential themes that I saw in The Bourne Supremacy by Robert Ludlum. This book is written in a way that provokes many themes. Everything that is told is told in a way that could be seen as hard to pick a theme out of. The writing is fast paced, action oriented, and much of the time seemingly unthoughtful. This may be true in a few rare cases but most of the time things were meant not only by the story but by the abstract writing style as well.
One of the things that pulls a theme out in this book is the use of David Webb and Jason Bourne. They are the same person but are written as separate characters. Both of them have two very different personalities but we can see that they are, deep down, almost the same. This brings out the theme that to succeed in any endeavor, one must first get to know themselves. David asks, "What do you do when there is a part of you that you hate?"(646). Marie replies "Accept it. He's the one who brought you back to me" (646). From this quote we can see that although Webb does not like his dangerous side, but because he was able to use it and know it, he saved his wife Marie and she is, obviously, very grateful. Also we can infer that if David himself had tried to rescue Marie from the government and the Chinese that he would have failed. But he knew what Bourne could do and he was able to use that.
Another theme that I noticed in this novel is the idea that the motives behind an action do not justify the actions themselves. This may be a fairly obvious theme but it takes center stage with no problem. Marie is abducted and held captive just to get her husband to come to China and help capture a killer. While this end may be justifiable the actions used to get there are not. Bourne tells one of his wife's captors, "It's obvious that she didn't have a damn thing to with it. Let her go!"(159). Bourne is furious that his wife has been dragged into this. He agrees that this killer must be caught but he is severely opposed to how they got him to do it. Throughout the rest of the book Bourne is very distrusting of the government for obvious reasons and this shows us how serious their infraction was.
Well, so there's a couple themes, kind of a boring topic but since this is English, somewhat necessary. Overall this book seemed to fit well inside the thriller genre which is what I expected, the writing was still fairly complex though, which lends an analytical element to the story. I'm not sure if I would recommend this book to anyone, especially those who think that it will resemble the movie. I enjoyed reading the book, but the first book in the series was much better and would still make sense if left alone.
So if you do decide to read this book, I'm open for discussion. There is definitely a lot to talk about.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Outside Reading Post 4
Well....
I think that Ill continue my character description of Catherine Staples, she is becoming ever more important in the novel so it might be a good thing if I did a real characterization of her. Catherine is introduced into the novel after Marie escapes her captors. Marie is looking for somewhere to hide out and somewhere to get help with her situation. She remembers a friend from the Canadian consulate that she had met at a seminar somewhere and vaguely remembers that she was stationed in Hong Kong. She surreptitiously contacts Catherine and they meet to discuss Marie's situation. Catherine is appalled by the actions of the American government and becomes wholeheartedly involved in the situation. She focuses not only on keeping Marie out of the eyes of the government but also on solving the mystery of David Webb.
Catherine Staples is a Canadian woman about 50 years of age. She is an assistant director of the Canadian consulate in Hong Kong and has been stationed there for an undefined period of time. She still keeps her connections to Canada but seems to have fully embraced Asian life. Catherine actually resembles Bourne a great deal and is very serious, quick thinking, and instinctive. She seems to have a burning passion for all of her 'missions' and is very persistent, not giving up until things are settled.
"The solution?" Asked Haviland
"There's only one... "said Catherine, "Hardball"(421).
This quote is a perfect description of how Staples thinks. It is in response of how to deal with a corrupt political figure in the People's Republic(China). She gets to the point and is ready to play "Hardball" right away. No nonsense. Make the kill.
There is one other character that is beginning to see plenty of action in the novel and that is Philippe D'Anjou. He is Frenchman who came from the same background as David Webb. They fought together in the Black Ops program "Medusa" during the Vietnam war. D'Anjou is as highly trained of a killer as Bourne is but he thinks in a much different manner. He is very calculative and very cautious and is not willing to take much risk. He acts as a calming figure to Bourne and prevents him from doing rash things. D'Anjou is also very self serving and again will risk little of himself. He is often referred to as Echo because that was his name in Medusa. He will also almost always call Bourne Delta, because that was Bourne's name during the war. Way back on page 246 he says, "Ultimately the motives don't really matter do they? Only the results"(246) This is a good description of how D'Anjou thinks. If he is doing something only for his own purposes he's fine with that. If he gets what he wants, he doesn't care how he got it. This does not make him a bad person though. The war may have instilled slightly messed up morals in him but he still keeps good intentions at heart.
Most of the time.
I think that Ill continue my character description of Catherine Staples, she is becoming ever more important in the novel so it might be a good thing if I did a real characterization of her. Catherine is introduced into the novel after Marie escapes her captors. Marie is looking for somewhere to hide out and somewhere to get help with her situation. She remembers a friend from the Canadian consulate that she had met at a seminar somewhere and vaguely remembers that she was stationed in Hong Kong. She surreptitiously contacts Catherine and they meet to discuss Marie's situation. Catherine is appalled by the actions of the American government and becomes wholeheartedly involved in the situation. She focuses not only on keeping Marie out of the eyes of the government but also on solving the mystery of David Webb.
Catherine Staples is a Canadian woman about 50 years of age. She is an assistant director of the Canadian consulate in Hong Kong and has been stationed there for an undefined period of time. She still keeps her connections to Canada but seems to have fully embraced Asian life. Catherine actually resembles Bourne a great deal and is very serious, quick thinking, and instinctive. She seems to have a burning passion for all of her 'missions' and is very persistent, not giving up until things are settled.
"The solution?" Asked Haviland
"There's only one... "said Catherine, "Hardball"(421).
This quote is a perfect description of how Staples thinks. It is in response of how to deal with a corrupt political figure in the People's Republic(China). She gets to the point and is ready to play "Hardball" right away. No nonsense. Make the kill.
There is one other character that is beginning to see plenty of action in the novel and that is Philippe D'Anjou. He is Frenchman who came from the same background as David Webb. They fought together in the Black Ops program "Medusa" during the Vietnam war. D'Anjou is as highly trained of a killer as Bourne is but he thinks in a much different manner. He is very calculative and very cautious and is not willing to take much risk. He acts as a calming figure to Bourne and prevents him from doing rash things. D'Anjou is also very self serving and again will risk little of himself. He is often referred to as Echo because that was his name in Medusa. He will also almost always call Bourne Delta, because that was Bourne's name during the war. Way back on page 246 he says, "Ultimately the motives don't really matter do they? Only the results"(246) This is a good description of how D'Anjou thinks. If he is doing something only for his own purposes he's fine with that. If he gets what he wants, he doesn't care how he got it. This does not make him a bad person though. The war may have instilled slightly messed up morals in him but he still keeps good intentions at heart.
Most of the time.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Outside Reading 3
Four Narrators dominate the scene of Robert Ludlum's Bourne Supremacy. Two happen to be the same person. Each narrator tells their stories in different ways and gives a different feel of what is happening. While none actually tell the exact same event from their eyes they all do give accounts of events that have happened. This is reminiscent of the novel Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer in the way that the story is told through multiple narrators.
"Breathing is breathing! Insisted Jason Bourne. "Being is being and thinking is thinking, added David Webb"(346). These two narrators are what makes this book so different from many books but also what makes it very similar Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Whenever there is direct, fast paced, action going on Bourne takes over telling the story. As I've mentioned in previous posts this gives the story a choppy, excited feel. What the reader sees is what Jason Bourne would see. When there is more rational thinking going on or one of the rare lulls in action Webb narrates the story. We think more about what is happening and what has happened which may make us remember something different than when we originaly saw it from the eyes of Jason Bourne. This is quite similar to how Foer uses Oskar, his granpa, and his grandma. Each of them will tell a story and often times it will be told again by one of the other characters. Oskar will always tell a story in an inquisitive way while his grandpa will tell it in a slightly more dry fashion. Grandma makes everything seem tragic which makes us see yet another story. Just like how Webb and Bourne will make the reader remember a story in a different way.
Now, because somehow I've avoided saying anything about plot, I'll give a summary of what has happened. The novel starts out by showing David and his wife Marie living the normal life that they longed for in the previous novel. Quickly though this life is disrupted when Marie is kidnapped by the government. David suspects it was the government and immediately does what they tell him to to get her back. The story moves to Hong Kong, China where David believes Marie is. He starts to make plans of his own but is aprehended and forced to cooperate. He is set on a mission to capture an assaassin that has been plaguing the east. The government thinks that he is the only one that can stop the assassin which is why they kidnap his wife. He would do anything for her and they take advantage of this.
Meanwhile Marie is not taking her situation sitting down. She quickly and cleverly finds a way to escape their custody and goes on the run with a friend fom the Canadian consulate named Catherine. The story continues following Bournes and Marie's quests to find each other.
Catherine is yet another strong individual that reminds the reader of Jason. She says, "You're a friend and a countrymen, my dear. And I am an angry woman"(277), in as Marie begins to question her quick thinking. We can tell from the tone of her writing that she is a serious woman and this, just like the multiple narrators above, give the reader a different picture of the event.
"Breathing is breathing! Insisted Jason Bourne. "Being is being and thinking is thinking, added David Webb"(346). These two narrators are what makes this book so different from many books but also what makes it very similar Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Whenever there is direct, fast paced, action going on Bourne takes over telling the story. As I've mentioned in previous posts this gives the story a choppy, excited feel. What the reader sees is what Jason Bourne would see. When there is more rational thinking going on or one of the rare lulls in action Webb narrates the story. We think more about what is happening and what has happened which may make us remember something different than when we originaly saw it from the eyes of Jason Bourne. This is quite similar to how Foer uses Oskar, his granpa, and his grandma. Each of them will tell a story and often times it will be told again by one of the other characters. Oskar will always tell a story in an inquisitive way while his grandpa will tell it in a slightly more dry fashion. Grandma makes everything seem tragic which makes us see yet another story. Just like how Webb and Bourne will make the reader remember a story in a different way.
Now, because somehow I've avoided saying anything about plot, I'll give a summary of what has happened. The novel starts out by showing David and his wife Marie living the normal life that they longed for in the previous novel. Quickly though this life is disrupted when Marie is kidnapped by the government. David suspects it was the government and immediately does what they tell him to to get her back. The story moves to Hong Kong, China where David believes Marie is. He starts to make plans of his own but is aprehended and forced to cooperate. He is set on a mission to capture an assaassin that has been plaguing the east. The government thinks that he is the only one that can stop the assassin which is why they kidnap his wife. He would do anything for her and they take advantage of this.
Meanwhile Marie is not taking her situation sitting down. She quickly and cleverly finds a way to escape their custody and goes on the run with a friend fom the Canadian consulate named Catherine. The story continues following Bournes and Marie's quests to find each other.
Catherine is yet another strong individual that reminds the reader of Jason. She says, "You're a friend and a countrymen, my dear. And I am an angry woman"(277), in as Marie begins to question her quick thinking. We can tell from the tone of her writing that she is a serious woman and this, just like the multiple narrators above, give the reader a different picture of the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)